Adoption Classism, Sexism and Scapegoat Hypothesis

"Why aren't these teenagers giving their babies up?!" One blogger whines. "Why don't they just send all of the Haitian children to America for adoption?!" another posts. "Praise God, the Birth Mother's rights have been terminated!*" an infertility/adoption loss newsletter (published by an adoption agency) proclaims. Agency websites I have perused tell women that their children deserve two-parent homes (failing to mention that adoptive parents are not magically impervious to the astounding divorce rate) among other various misleading things about single-parenthood.  It seems like everywhere you turn, someone has something questionable to say about adoption and the children of single/impoverished women.  What is the source of these attitudes and why do we view this as "OK" in modern society? I believe this is a result of an Affective Prejudice** lingering from how women and the poor have been poorly historically treated (and still have not achieved true equality) as well as may be a manifestation of Covert Classism and Sexism. I will discuss how a Post-Scoop*** attitude impacts adoptee rights and original family rights today.

So far in my adoptee rights/human rights/family preservation journey, I have encountered a lot of people who agree with me about the adoption industry and a lot who do not. While some who disagree will indeed acknowledge the manipulation and criminal history involving adoption in the past, they deny that any such activity occurs in the present. Adoption has been "fixed," it's been "cured" and we need to stop whining about what's wrong with it and "get over it." This "Post-Scoop" attitiude is very similar to the "Post-Racial" attitude that many have towards ethnic minority groups today. Both the "Post-Scoop" and "Post-Racial" attitudes claim that discrimination and hardship for these minority groups are a thing of the past and deny individuals belonging to these groups acknowledgement of their current pain and disenfranchisement. These "post" attitudes also deny that any current discrimination or unethics occurs against these goups today or when it does, it's an "isolated incident."

As many of you know, I have the Networked Blogs application on Facebook for this blog. This application opperates on keywords and will select similar blogs of a similar topic to be displayed on my blog's page. "Adoption" is a broad topic and some blogs that show up I more than disagree are a "related topic" but I digress. From time to time, I do click on these blogs. Besides the sentiments on adoption agency websites and the newsletter I mentioned previously, from comments I hear as well as comments I read on these blogs, I am becoming increasingly concerned with the attitudes I see from many individuals pursuing adoption and/or supporting the current state of adoption practice. Where does this distain for other women come from that we would feel entitled to their children as well as go so far as to "praise God!" when they lose their right to parent their children?

When people think of an individual who would be a candidate to give her baby up for adoption (note, we are speaking of Private Domestic Infant, not CPS cases were children are forcefully removed), we usually think of someone who "cannot parent" or who "does not want to parent." While I am sure there are some women who fall into the latter category, my research has lead me to believe that women who relinquish because they did not want to parent or have anything to do with their child as a primary reason for relinquishment, are few and far between. So we continue with those who fall in that former category: "cannot parent." What qualifies someone to not be able to parent? Those who if they parented their child (1) may not be able to go to school or work due to childcare conflicts (2) are in a dire financial state and cannot afford to feed/raise a child at this moment in time. (3) may feel unprepared to parent due to age, lack of resources or support from family. Note that these are all temporary issues that can be helped if someone takes the time to show a woman how to take advantage of the resources around them.

The above mentioned variables not only are acceptable qualifications for someone to be a Prospective Birth Mother according to society's standards, but they also place these individuals into a minority group. This minority group experiences societal discrimination as well as a disadvantage, in this case regarding protection of their parenting rights and opportunities, because they are poor and therefore have less power and control over managing crisis in their lives. "Not my problem" some might say. In fact, someone commenting on a Racialiscious article on adoption did say this: "Is it the responsibility of an adoptive parent to support the poor so that they don't have to give up their children? No. If they're given up for adoption, we adopt them" (roughly paraphrasing). The idea that others are not entitled to help resolving their poverty because it's not the responsibility of anyone else to help them is called the Human Capital Theory (Healy, J., Race, Ethnicity, Gender and Class, 2008, p. 55). The Human Capital Theory says that those who are impoverished experience their poverty and disenfranchisement as a result of the individual not working hard enough or being motivated enough to achieve and produce what society values. It ignores the personal context of a person's life and ignores the real root causes many are in poverty and cannot pull themselves out of it.

So, why this hostility toward these women? Why the anger towards women who give birth and cannot afford their babies and why is there such a desire for them to "do the right thing" and give their babies to affluent couples who cannot have children? I believe an industry is fueled by such a demand. Sociologically speaking, I feel that the Scapegoat Hypothesis (Healy, 2008, p. 109) applies to such a situation. Infertility is a major reason why many couples seek adoption. I have personally experienced the pain and anguish of fertility issues. I know what it's like to look at every woman with a child and feel Depressed. The Scapegoat Hypothesis says that those who feel a high level of anger and resentment may direct their anger on a minority in the form of prejudice or discrimination. Directing anger at or wishing loss upon (or celebrating the loss of) a poor woman who is pregnant is an overt form of Classism and Sexism. (Yes, I absolutely understand that not all infertile couples pursuing adoption feel this way. I am not including or generalizing everyone).  A society that adopts out the children of mothers who are willing to parent but are languishing in poverty, is a society that perpetuates Classism and Sexism.

-------------------------
Clarifications:

"Praise God the...."* this specific incidence was NOT described an abuse case. The "praise God!" comment on the news letter spoke of an adoption that was privately handled involving a First Mother and First Family who had a hard time making up their minds about surrendering.

Affective Prejudice** is negative feelings that a person experiences in regard to an individual who belongs to a different group.  These feelings when not acted upon or when measures to hide these feelings and opinions are taken, it is referred to as Covert Prejudice.  Acting on or speaking out from these feelings is Overt Prejudice.

Post-Scoop*** a term derived from The Baby Scoop Era (TM), a period in history where adoption soared at unprecidented rates.  http://www.babyscoopera.com/.  Post-Scoop describes an attitude that we're "past" unethical adoption practices and that there's no impact of past practices on adoption today.  A post-anything attitude blames the victim of discrimination for their own disenfranchisement, instead of admitting that hardship can extend into the present and future as well as into consecutive generations.

Capitalism and Consumerism of Adoption

I had some thoughts pop into my head today that I decided to write down. I have been on a never-ending quest to show anyone willing to listen, different sides of adoption than what is typically brought to mind when adoption is mentioned. One particular aspect of adoption that I think people should know about is the Capitalistic aspect that focuses on consumer-based supply and demand.

We tend to think of adoption in emotional terms. Less than 100 years ago in our American society, children were valued to their families for the work they could produce for the families and the lineage they could provide. There's a very old saying (circa 1700’s) about the importance of the chastity of a woman; her chasteness insures that the wealth and power of the man of a family goes to the "rightful" heir. And in such a sentiment woman and children have been viewed throughout history; not as equals per say but as employees and possessions. Such was the logic produced from male-dominated society in the Agrarian and Industrial eras.

In the early 1900's, children began to become viewed with sentimental value and adoption became more common place. Children were no longer valued for the work they could produce (especially with the dawn of child labor laws) nor were they devalued as extra mouths to feed. In the 1940's adoption workers such as Georgia Tann exploited this sentimental attachment towards children and desire to raise and love children, by stealing babies and selling them (yes, selling them) to adoptive parents (many of which were perhaps as corrupt as she was, but many of which who were oblivious and victims of her as much as anyone else). Unethical measures to separate women and their children have taken place throughout each decade, evolving with the changing times to something new but something perhaps as equally manipulative as the previous decade.

While in previous decades women might have been encouraged (or forced) to relinquish based on stringent societal and religious values, we see the same manipulation engaged in modern times based on the socioeconomic status of an original family or original mother. The stigmas of being "dirty" or "promiscuous" and therefore ruining the life and reputation of one's child (which can only be solved, as some might have seen it, by surrendering the child and sealing all documentation tying one’s self to "illegitimate" birth) have lost their full social and legal impacts. Yet the shame of welfare status and the perceived "burdens" of single parenthood, in my opinion, have grown in a Post-Industrialized society. We live in a society where one’s value to the whole of society is based on what they contribute back to society. Those who cannot contribute to society in the way that society values (e.g. contributing to wealth and work) are placed in subordinate minority groups that are often exploited for the purpose of larger society. I see poor, single, impoverished women, as well as Prospective First Mothers, being placed in the subordinate minority by society. Adoption in many cases, is not the result of America's modern feministic woman family planning a new life for herself and for her child so that she and the child can both make "better lives" for themselves. It is rather the result of an impoverished woman, alone and without resources, who is made to feel she has no other choice but to separate herself from her genetic progeny. I was irritated to overhear on an adoption show (while flipping through the channels, I do not purposely watch shows like "Adoption Story") "the mother just wasn't in a place financially to raise her child." Why is this ever acceptable? Instead of taking her baby, why not help her BE in a BETTER PLACE so that she does not have to give her baby up? In this case, a Prospective First Mother is valued because she can contribute a child to a couple who wants one. She is lesser valued if she keeps her child and increases the dependency on society.

The larger answer to this I later found in response to a first mother's video on You Tube where a commenter responded wanting to know who was going to "foot the bill" for all of the Prospective First Mothers if society helps them keep their children. Alas, this is how we truthfully view these women. Further evidence is found on my state of residence's "Safe" Haven website. "Safe" Haven laws have long been lauded because people mistakenly believe that they save babies from being thrown in dumpsters. But no such pleas for women to spare the lives of their children are made on this website. No, rather, young women are encouraged to keep their pregnancies a secret, not tell their parents if they do not want to and instead come into the hospital where no one will ask them any questions and they can leave their babies without giving so much as their first name or looking into the eyes of a hospital worker. They even have targeting ads on Facebook. At first glance, I thought this was yet another sleezy website put out there by some pro-adoption entity or private adoption agency but was alarmed to see that this is a state-government-produced website.

What is the purpose of the state being so indescribably manipulative in terms of "Safe" Haven legislation? It’s partly due to the lobbying of adoption entities and partly due to the pre-criminalization of single women and the poor based on archaic and misinformed stigmas. However, also to blame is the belief that single, pregnant women who are dependent on society (who are about to give birth to a baby who will be also be dependent on society) have less of what society values to offer. Easy relinquishment that places the would-be dependent baby into the arms of affluent parents who are not dependent on society alleviates part of the dependency that society will have to manage. "Safe" Haven babies are more easily marketable because they have fewer ties to their original families. Also, no effort needs to be made to provide counseling to a woman in the decision-making process. It is perfectly acceptable by such a law for a woman who has a newborn and is perhaps still hormonal, still bleeding and still under the influence of stress and pain medications from birth to stumble into the hospital and abandon her baby with no help offered to her and no one so much as taking her name or medical history. It is the ultimate opportunity for a state to skip-out on managing dependency. But at what cost? At the cost of the identity and medical wellbeing of the child relinquished. At the cost of the issues involved in separating mother and child. At the cost of a parent in many cases, not being able to know that their child is OK at all times. At the cost of a mother not being able to raise her own child. It shis what we trade to keep one less person from being dependant?

(Not convinced that adoption would be used for such a thing?  The Indian Adoption Act, now reversed and replaced with the Indian Child Welfare Act, is an example of the U.S. government using adoption to "cure" its dependency and poverty issues, resulting in the unethical removal of Native American children from their homes).

What do I suggest? I suggest investing in today's youth who will someday be society's leadership. Investing in today's youth includes investing in the mothers and nurturers of these children. This is not in the form of adoption separation where mothers separate themselves permanently from their children over temporary financial issues. This is in the form of helping families stay together and giving them the resources necessary to stay together. Our investment today will pay off in tomorrow (and who knows, maybe they'll be footing YOUR bill when you need it someday?). Adoption only invests half-way. While it may improve the socioeconomic status of a child (which is a completely inappropriate value to place on parenting to begin with), we are still ignoring the child's first mother. Adoption does not alleviate her poverty; she is still left in her disadvantaged, disenfranchised state (which is why in many cases, a first mother may have repeated relinquishments after her first surrender).

If we push for the adoption of those children already truly needy (truly orphaned and/or truly abused) and help support children along with their mothers instead of "improving" the socioeconimomic situation of the child and leaving his mother in poverty, that we will see dependency truly managed appropriately. So long as our focus is not on doing such things, we cannot deny that single women and poor families do not have equal parenting rights nor do they have equal protection of their rights and opportunities to parent their own children.

Americans arrested taking children out of Haiti

(Repost from  Yahoo News): 

By Joseph Guyler Delva Joseph Guyler Delva – Sat Jan 30, 5:22 pm ET
PORT-AU-PRINCE (Reuters) – Haitian police have arrested 10 U.S. citizens caught trying to take 33 children out of the earthquake-stricken country in a suspected illicit adoption scheme, authorities said on Saturday.

The five men and five women were in custody in the capital, Port-au-Prince after their arrests on Friday night. There are fears that traffickers could try to exploit the chaos and turmoil following Haiti's January 12 earthquake quake to engage in illegal adoptions.

One of the suspects, who says she is leader of an Idaho-based charity called New Life Children's Refuge, denied they had done anything wrong.

The suspects were detained at Malpasse, Haiti's main border crossing with the Dominican Republic, after Haitian police conducted a routine search of their vehicle.

Authorities said the Americans had no documents to prove they had cleared the adoption of the 33 children -- aged 2 months to 12 years -- through any embassy and no papers showing they were made orphans by the quake in the impoverished Caribbean country.
"This is totally illegal," said Yves Cristalin, Haiti's social affairs minister. "No children can leave Haiti without proper authorization and these people did not have that authorization."

U.S. authorities could not be reached for immediate comment on the arrests.
But Laura Sillsby from the Idaho group told Reuters from a jail cell at Haiti's Judicial Police headquarters, "We had permission from the Dominican Republic government to bring the children to an orphanage that we have there."
"We have a Baptist minister here (in Port-au-Prince) whose orphanage totally collapsed and he asked us to take the children to the orphanage in the Dominican Republic," Sillsby added.

"I was going to come back here to do the paperwork," Sillsby said. "They accuse us of children trafficking. This is something I would never do. We were not trying to do something wrong."
In addition to outright trafficking in children, authorities have voiced fears since the quake that legitimate aid groups may have flown earthquake orphans out of the country for adoption before efforts to find their parents had been exhausted.

As a result, the Haitian government halted many types of adoptions earlier this month.

There are no reliable estimates of the number of parentless and lost children at risk in Haiti's quake-shattered capital.

(Editing by Peter Cooney)

Original link:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100130/ts_nm/us_quake_haiti_arrests_1

Repost: Call for Signatures

Quote:

TO: President Barack Obama
First Lady Michelle Obama
Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius
RE: Adoption Practices

FROM: The Adoption Community

Now that Haiti has declared a moratorium on the post quake rush to adopt its children, we must continue to protect the Haitian children from any continued hasty removals by predatory groups who might fly in once the airports re-open to scoop up children, no matter how well-intentioned, as we reflect on the course of future adoption practices.

Those of us whose lives have been irrevocably shaped by adoption offer our personal insight and ask you to listen to our voices and painfully gained wisdom. Adoption can provide a caring and safe home, but must always put the best interests of children first. Adoption should always be about finding homes for orphans and children who have no family members able and willing to provide safe care. Unfortunately it has become more focused on finding babies or children to fill a demand of those able to pay high fees to obtain a child. Thus, for the sake of all children:

We beseech lawmakers to not be influenced by lobbyists for the multi-billion-dollar adoption industry or by the religiously based organizations and agencies, no matter how well-intentioned, who wish to use the redistribution of children for financial gain or to recruit members of their faith. Follow the advise of child welfare experts and NGOs with no motivation other than what is truly best for children.

We implore you to follow the path of Israel and focus all governmental programs that promote adoption, e.g. tax credits, toward the adoption of the 129,000 children in American foster care who could be adopted instead of allowing prospective parents to apply tax credits toward the adoption of almost any child. Children is foster care are being used as pawns to get such laws enacted and renewed and then be left behind while prospective parents use tax credits to adopt from elsewhere.

We encourage the formation of a federal department of Family Preservation that would allocate funds to help families in temporary crisis, whether financial or otherwise, receive the assistance they need to remain intact. Programs such as in-home care have proven highly successful and more cost effective than foster care removals which put children into high risk situations.

We seek federal protection of the constitutional right to parent one's own children that are currently being violated by state laws such as Putative Father Registries.

We insist on restoration of the rights of all adopted persons in regard to the discrimination they face in accessing their own birth certificate. We demand that the Federal government prevent states from issuing falsified birth certificates that state that adopted children are born to their adoptive parents, and that often change not just their names but their date and place of birth. This is state committed fraud and violates the basic right of every human to their identity.

Signed,
Mirah Riben, mother who lost a child to adoption, New Jersey
Gaye Tannenbaum, New York adoptee
Caroline Collins, adult adoptee currently living in Texas(additional signatures being added by email)

Mirah asks: To sign, please send an email to email@AdvocatePublications.com with your name, connection to adoption, state and a brief comment, if you'd like. Please pass the word via email lists, blogs, Facebook...

See Mirah's blog post here:  http://familypreservation.blogspot.com/2010/01/call-for-signatures.html

Adoption and Haiti's Saviors

I have come to a point in my life where I am unable to view anything the United States does as being primarily motivated by benevolence.  Our obsession with Haiti caused alarms to go off in my mind the minute I heard about the catastrophe.  You didn't have tell me that the U.S. would swoop down there and offer aid to Haiti or that Haiti children would be the latest adoption craze.  It was inevitable.  While I'm not glad about the activity going on in Haiti, I am at least glad that my fears have been validated by multiple souces such as CNN and Racialiscious, as well as in one of my classes.  I thought that I would share with my readers what we discussed in one of my classes in combination with my other ponderings and worries.

In 1492, Colombus "discovered" Haiti and it was declared a Spanish colony.  In less than 60 years, Colombus and those who traveled to Haiti had wiped out the Indigenous tribes there with disease and harsh, inhumane treatment.  When they had killed all of the Indigenous, forced black labor was brought to take the place of the previous workforce.  France and Spain fought for control; France won in 1697.  To make up for the slaves that had died on the colony during the war, over half a million African slaves were brought to Haiti by France.  The French who colonized there forced many slaves into relations.  When these forced relations resulted in bi-racial children, three classes of citizens developed.  The Slave Rebellion took place in 1791 and on January 1, 1804, Haiti became the world's first free black republic. (Lassiter 2010).

At one time, Haiti "produced 60% of the world's coffee and 40% of France's sugar imports" (Lassiter, 2010, slide 15).

While Haiti's independence brought hope to enslaved people everywhere, the idea was not widely tolerated by much of the power holders in the world.  France demanded that Haiti pay for its freedom and threatened to reinvade.

"Haiti is still paying back that debt.  In 2006, the debt was calculated to be $21 billion." (Lassiter, 2010 slide 17).

The United States invaded Haiti in 1915 and occupied it until 1934 claiming it was protecting Haiti from Germany (Lassiter 2, 2010, slide 3).  They chose Haiti's leaders and allowed foreigners to own Haiti's land (slide 5).  Even after the U.S. left in 1934, Haiti's lack of government allowed the U.S. to influence leaders to come into power that could be easily controlled (slide 6). 

Haiti needed to pay back France for its freedom as well as recover from the corruption of its leaders.  It borrowed 24.6 million dollars from the U.S. and the IMF (Lassiter 3, 2010, slide 5).  "In order to get the IMF loan, Haiti  had to open up its markets to foreign competition.  The United States was the richest and could sell their rice very cheaply.  They put Haitian farms out of business" (Lassiter 3, 2010, slide 7).  The IMF also took control of Haiti's sugar trade (Lassiter 3, 2010, slide 8).

More history can be found here.

This reminds me so much of a quote in Martin Luther King Jr's 1967 ‘where do we go from here: chaos or community?’ where he says: "being a negro in america.....means having your legs cut off, and then being condemned for being a cripple. it means seeing your mother and father spiritually murdered by the siblings and arrows of daily exploitation, and then being hated for being an orphan."


How can Haiti owe anyone anything?  The slaves were brought there against their will fought and won their freedom and then were forced to pay for it.  If slavery is no longer acceptable; why are they paying for their freedom and why is this permitted to happen?  They were completely disenfranchised from the beginning and have continually had the rug swept out from under them and then are expected to get over it and recover from it.  The people who are proverbially condemning them for being "crippled" are the same people who proverbially "cut their legs off."
So what is the U.S. really doing in their efforts to help Haiti?  How much will Haiti owe after we're done?

Perhaps Haiti is already paying for it.  In the aspect of adoption, which of course I'm focused on because I have a bone to pick with adoption in-general, we're swooping in and adopting out these children with neary a thought as to whether or not their real parents are actually still alive or not.

Maybe it's because so many believe that the parents of these children are indeed dead.  Maybe its because the children of the poor are already predispositioned to be viewed as orphans, whether we realise it,  understand it or want to admit it or not.  You will often hear me point out evidence that screamingly points to the unequal parenting rights of the poor.  No one argues with me that "adoption should only take place when absolutely necessary."  What I argue against what seems like the whole of society is what "absolutely necessary" means.  As it stands, "absolutely necessary" pertains not only to those whose family is truly dead, those who are truly abandoned and those from truly from abusive families but it is also perfectly acceptable in the eyes of society for parents who are poor and without resources to hand their children over to rich people.  Racialiscious made awesome observations here.

Here's another instance of lesser evils.  Growing up surrounded by fundamentalism and Conservative, Evangelical Christianity in my home community, I don't have to tell you that the consensus is that Haiti is a place dedicated to the devil.  I'm sure many people would like nothing more than to save Haiti's children from their culture and belief systems.  See Baby Love Child's blog entry about this here.

Let's not use this earthquake as an opportunity to safe children from the "heathenism" of Haiti.  Let's not use this horrible event to rob Haiti's parents of their children and fulfill the needs of the adoption market.  Let's not use this earthquake to wipe out Haiti's culture.  It is my fervent prayer that Haiti gets the help in ITS best interest and not anyone elses'.

“In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” -MLK

------------
References:  Information on Haiti's history, U.S. history of involvement in Haiti and Haiti's debt taken from January 2010 lecture by Prof. Chad Lassiter accompanied by three slideshows created by Prof. Lassiter on Haiti.

More of Haiti's history can be found here: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/01/13/f-haiti-earthquake-history.html

Photo from CBC Canada

Tyra Says Lots of Money Makes Adoptions Go Smoothly

Today, Thursday, January 21, 2010, Tyra Banks did a segment called "Teenage Pimps."  The segment was about teenagers who pimp out other teenagers for money.  But adoption somehow made its way into the mix.

Awkwardly attached to the tale end of the show was a former prospective adoptive couple who was scammed by an adoption lawyer.  Tyra introduced their portion of the show by listing off famous couples who have adopted admitting that their adoptions went so smoothly because the celebrities had enough money to pay for the adoptions to go smoothly (oh yes, that's exactly what she said).  She transitioned into introducing the couple by explaining how much they had spent, $60,000, and you think because they had a lot of money, their adoption would have gone smoothly.

The adoption lawyer promised to them, and to 16 other couples, that there were two "birth mothers" ready to relinquish upon birth and they would get two babies for $60,000.

The Prospective Adoptive Mother even went to the hospital when the lawyer told her the "birth mother" was being induced.  She was told by the lawyer that she couldn't know any details because the "birth mother" was having difficulties.

They were scammed.

The couple said: "he preyed on our emotions."  They said that when it comes to adoptions "think with your head, not with your heart."

Here are my questions for Tyra......
1.  Why do celebrity adoptions go more smoothly because they have a lot of money?
2.  Why would a PAP's adoption go more smoothly if they have a lot of money?
3.  Why do babies cost an upwards of $20,000 and $30,000 each to adopt and why didn't hearing that shock you?
4.  Why is adoption a 3 billion dollar per year industry? (not mentioned on the show but kind of a common-sense question).
5.  Why do many of the executives of many of the large adoption agencies make such enormous salaries? (again, not on the show but I'm practicing common sense here).
6.  If PAPs are targeted to get money, don't you also think Prospective Birth Mothers are also targeted so that they'll give up their babies so that money can be made off of the resulting adoption, as well?  Don't you think that there are birth mothers out there who were in crisis, wanted help parenting and instead were convinced that the "selfless" thing to do would be to give their baby to a wealthy couple who would give their child all of the material things that they could not?
7.  Do you understand that these women are out there and want to be heard too?

I am sending her an email, snail mail and posted my questions on the show comment board.  I will keep you updated if I get a response.

http://tyrashow.warnerbros.com/2010/01/teen_pimps_and_prostitutes.php

"I'm Legit" Zara Philips & Daryl (DMC) Music Video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZbKNJUyGQ0

We Need an EMTALA for Adoption

The latest post at First Mother Forum, "In Adoption, Money Talks," got me thinking.  Why isn't there an EMTALA for adoption?

For those of you that do not know, EMTALA is a federal law that mandates that emergency rooms may not refuse any patient a doctor's screening as well as intervention for urgent/emergent complaints.  EMTALA was an instance where legislators recognised that Capitalism's ignorance to those who cannot pay for emergent medical needs was killing people and/or putting their lives in danger.  (I discuss the history of EMTALA's origins below).

Here is the comment I posted at FMF, it is the inspiration for this blog entry...

"In a country completely driven by Capitalism, human rights, respect and decency will always take second (or third...or fourth) place.

Capitalism has its place but in my opinion, it has no business being involved in setting the minimum standards for how human beings are treated. Why? Because Capitalism will always throw out those that cannot contribute to its gain.

Take health care for example. EMTALA had to be created because hospitals would refuse to admit single, poor pregnant women who were in labor if they were afraid that the women couldn't pay the resulting hospital bill. Can't contribute to the financial gain of the hospital? Give birth on the street. Despite EMTALA, people still somehow end up dying while crying out from a supine position on waiting room floors. Capitalism and competition may help further our medical technology but financial gain has no business setting the baseline standard by which all humans, regardless of socioeconomic status, are treated.

I could go on about numerous industries where human services are provided (food, clothing, housing, education etc.) but I'll skip right to adoption. In my opinion, financial gain in private adoption absolutely sets the baseline standard for how human beings are treated. It causes adoption agencies to offer newer and better services to those to contribute to that gain (the prospective adoptive parents). Pro-adoption entities now assist adoptive parents with obtaining: toll-free phone numbers, personal websites, fancy profiles and even carefully placed advertising--among other things. There's even current and pending legislation out there to make adopting easier. There is a big lacking of services, however, to prospective birth parents who are fallen on hard times and would be using resources rather than contributing to profit. Not only that, it is "OK" as a societal opinion for families to be "heros," "unselfish" and "do the right thing" and relinquish their babies and small children due to temporary financial troubles that they can find no resources to help them pull through.

In short, so long as there is profit in adoption, benevolence will always be a secondary (or heck, tertiary) motivation to provide services and the baseline for the care and consideration of human beings will always be set in favor of those who are paying. You can't consider the needs of a child first if your main priority is those who are paying for your services."
 
Now clearly, I am not implying that EMTALA can be literally applied to adoption but the principle and morals behind it can.  EMTALA attempts to prohibit a hospital's greed from harming human beings.  Why isn't there federal regulation that would prohibit an adoption entity's greed from harming human beings?  Besides the story of Casey Johnson that FMF reported on and other stories like it as well as the research provided regarding the Baby Scoop Era(TM), do legislators and voters really need any more proof of the driving force of profit in adoption?  Do the accounts by birth mothers everywhere of lies and pressure to facilitate relinquishment so that a couple could adopt their child mean nothing?  Does the fact that private infant adoption costs an upwards of $30,000 per child not ring a huge alarm bell for anyone?  Do adoption agency CEO/CFO salaries not speak any reason?
 
I ask legislators to remove the profit from adoption services.  What agencies will be left to provide services for children based on benevolence alone?

MTV, Pregnancy and Adoption...No Duh

I just received email correspondence from an agent who works with MTV and MTV's hit series "Teen Mom" who noticed my previous coverage of the show's one and only birth mom, Catelynn. She sent me information on the show as well as the opportunity to interview some of the cast members. I am still deciding (and verifying the credentials and validity of the email).

The content in the email, namely the press release introducing MTV's series "Teen Mom" was no secret. We already know what "Teen Mom" is supposed to be about. It's supposed to tell us that "parenting is hard." Here is a quote made by Sarah Brown, CEO of The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy contained in the content sent:

"After 15 straight years of decline, the teen birth rate in the United States is on the rise again. In other words, the need to help young people understand the challenges of too-early pregnancy and parenthood and the profound, life-long responsibility of being a parent is now more important than ever. Thank you MTV for providing a no-holds-barred look at the realities of being a teen parent.”

This is hardly something I would thank MTV for. They're benefitting from the ratings and notoriety given to them by people who feel that this show does "good." If you want to thank anyone, thank the girls who are putting their lives on television to be made an example for everyone else.

So many ethical questions come into play with this show. I'd like to interview MTV more than I'd like to interview the cast of the show now that I think of it.....

"Are the girls being paid?"

If not,

"How can MTV stand by and see that these girls and their partner's have very little resources and benefit from the ratings but not give a dime to make the girl's financial situations better?"

"If MTV would have given Catelynn and Tyler financial help, would they have been able to keep Carly? If so, would keeping Carly have made their story less desirable to MTV?"

I'm stupefied by the fact that ANY television show could benefit from the ratings that a person's personal situation being televised on TV supplies but at the same time would be able to stand by and film the hardships involved and not offer any support. It could very well be said that if MTV provided the girls with money, resources and support in exchange for being filmed, there'd be no "hardship" and therefore nothing for MTV to film. Are you getting my drift here? The ratings and point of the show very much depend on the couple's personal situations staying just the way they are.

To me MTV does unknowingly point out one good point. Teen parenting is hard. It's especially hard because society refuses to offer adequate resources and help for people who do get pregnant and didn't plan to. MTV unintentionally makes that very clear.

Another question I'd like to ask MTV:

"Considering the demise of Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson's marriage after having the world view their most personal details on MTV's past show "The Newlyweds," do you really feel that having cameras in a 16-year-old's delivery room and capturing the most vulnerable moments of a young parent's life (which are later either praised or bantered later on chatboards world-wide) is setting these young teens up for any better of an outcome than Nick and Jessica had?"

Remember "The Newlyweds?" The show that pushed Jessica further into stardom (and painted her to be the biggest airhead on the planet) and failed to do much of anything for Nick's career? This show was also seen as providing a service to teens. Teens who may glorify and aspire to riches and fame may not understand how hard it is. "The Newlyweds" showed them a responsible couple who tried to manage the ups and downs of stardom and attempted to give kids a "realistic" view. In the end, the couple blamed the demise of their marriage on the show. They show interfered in their relationship, it kept them from having intimate moments and working things out and it caused them to have to put on a show instead of being "real" and getting to know each other in their first years of marriage.

How is putting 16 and 17 year-olds and their babies (who cannot consent to be recorded and televised) any better? What is MTV doing to make sure that these young people aren't being set up for failure like Nick and Jessica? I personally see no difference. We're justifying the means of teens obtaining information at the expense of not only Nick and Jessica but the cast of "Teen Mom" and "16 and Pregnant" too.

My source on this? Me. I was a teeny-bopper at the time watching "The Newlyweds." During my abstinence-only education at the time in high school, we were encouraged to pay extra-close attention to Jessica and Nick because they waited until they were married to have sex (but then the same community that promoted them for their abstinence wanted to sweep them under the rug when they got a divorce).

I'd like to remind Sarah Brown, CEO of The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, the woman I quoted at the beginning of this entry, of a survey just recently performed and published by her own organization. According to their December 2009 survey of 1,800 young people ranging from ages 18-29, young people seem already more than well aware that parenting is "hard." The problem identified in the study was that although most young people feel that pregnancies should be planned, they do not fully understand how to prevent the pregnancies. The survey found that a majority of interviewees did not understand oral contraceptives and a staggering 30% did not understand condoms. Many held to old-wives-tales and completely false information. The survey calls for MORE and BETTER sex education. Displaying someone's hardships as a teen parent on national television is NOT sex education. It does not tell anyone how NOT to get pregnant.

At any rate, we know that the result of the show is to display how hard teen pregnancy and parenting is but what are the intentions, or better yet, what does the display of this "hardship" imply? What lesson does it really teach? I see two possible implications (1) that you shouldn't get pregnant (2) that you shouldn't continue a pregnancy. Let's discuss:

That you Shouldn't Get Pregnant
We can agree that teenagers without resources should wait to plan pregnancies until they're ready. But ALL of these pregnancies were obviously unplanned. So....

Does the show teach abstinence? No. All of the couples are already sexually active, have already gotten pregnant, already have a baby and are all still together and sexually active (except Farrah who is living at home with her daughter and her parents single).

Does the show teach safe-sex and contraception? No. As far as I am aware, only one episode featured an IUD and Catelynn. There's nothing educational about safe-sex featured on this show. The show features how hard it is to be young and pregnant and then young and a mom but does not feature teens taking precautions not to get pregnant in the first place. There's no informal sex-ed class being given here about prevention--it just lets you know how hard it is once you are pregnant. If you go to the website, MTV does refer you to information on contraceptives but contraceptives and related education are NOT an intricate part of the show.

That You Shouldn't Continue a Pregnancy
No one is jumping on this as an implication of the show. Because MTV has involved adoption in this program and none of the participants have chosen abortion for themselves, abortion as an alternative implication of this show has not dawned on anyone (see, I told you there's little correlation between adoption and abortion). But if we're not teaching contraceptive use and safe-sex but we ARE teaching how hard it is to be a pregnant, what does this say to a teenager who gets pregnant? It tells them that being pregnant is hard, embarrassing and full of anguish. So if you don't want to be pregnant what do you do? You have an abortion.

To me, neither of these implications of the show that people seem to want to attach to it really fit. To determine the real implication, let's talk about what the show actually depicts:

The show depicts Farrah, whose mother is allegedly doing much of the child-rearing because Farrah is too concerned with being a teenager.  Likewise, Maci's fiance can't seem to get a grip on being a father.  There's verbal and physical aggression in Amber's relationship and all of the couples are experiencing instability in their relationships. Everyone but Catelynn and Tyler are experiencing problems achieving education. The show depicts how hard Catelynn and Tyler's life is and, no doubt, how hard Carly's life would be had they kept her.  Then there is Catelynn and Tyler who aren't parenting their child; so why does the show choose to feature them? This brings me to my conclusion....

This show shows how parenting is hard--no duh. What are the implied solutions when one becomes pregnant? It's not about how not to get pregnant and no one will admit that an obvious implication is abortion. This show is in essence pro-adoption propaganda. It displays the stereotypes of young and teen motherhood and the hardships that the babies are involved in all-the-while featuring Catelynn and Tyler so that viewers can keep in the back of their minds that at least one of the babies got to escape all of this.

I have never seen a television show so completely lauded for featuring so many stereotypes of any individual (in this case, of young mothers) in one place masked by the label of being "realistic" as in "16 and Pregnant" and "Teen Mom."  Will anyone give moms like me: college educated, raising a child in a two-parent home, waited-till-I-was-23, a chance to be on TV to show that parenting isn't easy-street for us either?  Yet again, we are downplaying a young parent's entitlement to parent and using adoption to excuse society’s failure to adequately provide resources for young parents. 
---------------------------
CNN Health reports on the referenced study
Here's my previous post about MTV's "Teen Mom"

"Adopted but we Didn't Know"

Passing this along from two other blogs in blogland.  It's an article interviewing 4 LDAs (Late-Discovery-Adoptees);  http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jan/02/adoption-children-family